Inside a Mormon Temple Wedding

Recently I was fortunate to have been able to attend a Mormon temple wedding in both Sacramento, California and in American Fork, Utah. Just in case you haven’t seen either of the temples, here are some pictures:

Sacramento Mormon Temple

Mt Timpanogos Mormon Temple (in American Fork, Utah)

As you notice, the outside of the temples are white and the buildings are elegant. When you get closer to the temples, there are the words “Holiness to the Lord” inscribed on them as you enter.

Once you enter into the temple, there are temple workers who are dressed in white. The white signifies purity and cleanliness that is only found through following and accepting Jesus into one’s life.

The temple workers will then ask you for your Mormon temple recommend, which all Mormons receive if they are living a virtuous life and trying to follow Jesus.

After showing the recommend, we were then led to the sealing room where the Mormon temple wedding takes place. A typical sealing room, as shown in the picture below, has an altar in the middle of the room with chairs surrounding the altar for the guests. There are also two chairs at either side of the altar for the witness couple (typically the couple is both the bride and the groom’s parents) to witness the wedding.

Mormon Temple Sealing Room

We’ve had many discussions over the years on this blog about the various ways God speaks to us through His Spirit. I must say that God spoke to me in a very powerful, yet simple way at both of these Mormon temple weddings.

In both situations, I felt the power of God’s Spirit upon entering the temple. It was a feeling of complete purity and peace that washed over me.

After we were all seated, the bride and groom then entered, followed by the Mormon Temple Sealer, or in other words, the person performing the wedding.

As seen in most religious weddings, the Mormon Temple Sealer gives advice to the couple. Usually, the advice is good and centered around how to keep the Lord as the center of the relationship.

Additional advice that I found very insightful at these weddings included the following:

Tell each other that you love each other every day

Tell each other why you love each other

Never give the same reason twice as to why you love each other

Never speak evil of the Lord’s anointed can mean not to speak evil of each other

After giving insightful words and sharing testimony, the Mormon Temple sealer then has the couple kneels across the altar and grasp hands. He then performs the wedding and seals them as husband and wife for all eternity together with the Lord.

It is a beautiful thing to witness and the Holy Spirit is very strong. I recommend a temple marriage to anyone!

That is all nice and good. The difficulty I see is that, if I understand matters correctly, the couple is given to understand that a proper marriage will be a temple marriage; no real blessing will happen, kingdom-wise unless this very elaborate and very costly wedding occurs. Am I right? It sounds like Rome all over again, which, ironically, Smith deplored. If I’m on the right track, you might want to consider Luther’s pamphlet, “Babylonian Captivity,” in which he decries the seven sacraments of the church and how Rome used these as a chain to bind the consciences of the Christian as to what is holy and what is profane. As much as marriages have been consummated and been holy in God’s sight from the beginning–w.o temple rites–it is unreasonable and unScriptural to mandate or bind the minds of Christians in that way. FWIW.

Also, thank you for sharing Luther’s pamphlet. I’ve read it in the past…a long time ago when I was studying my Bachelor’s in German Literature. I will have to dust it off again and read it. My initial thought is that the LDS point of view is in line with Luther in the sense that the seven sacraments of the church had become corrupted, but that was the reason for a restoration of the original ordinances that were established, rather than doing away with them completely.

Just to further clarify, not everyone is dressed in white at a Mormon temple wedding; only the bride, groom and official conducting the ceremony (Mormon Temple Sealer) are dressed fully in white (I cannot remember if the witness couple is too). Everyone else is dressed formally in Sunday attire – ie. ties, dresses, etc.

You can get married in the LDS temple and its completely free…! We didn’t spend a dime, yet gained an experience beyond earthly words to describe what it feels and how close you come to feel Gods presence. 12 years later, we are still learning about Eternal Marriage, and how we, as a couple, can have a much stronger marriage on earth, while having an eternal goal.

Ezra — Just to clarify one thing: A temple wedding need not be costly. In fact, the bride and groom are free to go to the temple in the same clothes they wear to church on Sunday, in which case the only cost is for the government-issued marriage license. The church charges nothing for the ceremony, the facility or the officiant. Anything that a couple wants to do beyond that, such as a wedding gown or a reception afterward, is optional.

Thanks very much for the peek inside.
Critics of the Mormon Church have made the temples spooky. I don’t see anything spooky about what you’ve described.

Many Mormons have told me the presence of the Lord is stronger in the temples than in an ordinary Mormon chapel. GraceforGrace has confirmed this.

I have two questions: Can you tell us what the Lord spoke to you? Are LDS folks more open about what takes place in a temple than they used to be?

Concerning the eternal nature of the wedding, I know we’ll be reunited with loved ones—with the loved ones who die with faith still in their hearts—but in Mark 12:18-25 where the Sadducees asked Jesus which man will be the husband of a woman who had seven husbands, he responded, “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will all be like the angels in heaven.”

Jesus made it sound like marriage will be ended. Do angels marry? Maybe someone can explain this. Does the Book of Mormon have anything to say about eternal marriage?

In any case, I don’t see it as a big issue. What does matter more is the fact that Christians like myself can’t get a temple recommend and aren’t allowed into the temples. This rule solidifies the division between us.

Maybe I’ll organize a protest outside a temple. . . . on second thought, I’ll just pray—it works better.

Peace. That’s what the Lord spoke to me. Not in words, but in an overwhelming feeling. It was a feeling that I had entered into His presence for a brief moment. A feeling that is almost describable. Simple, yet very powerful.

I think some people are more open to discussing what happens in temples than others are. What questions do you have about the temple? Perhaps I’ll write another article on that.

That’s a good question about the what Jesus said about angels and people marrying. That’s another good point you bring up about the temples causing a riff between other faiths and Mormons. I’ll do a bit of research on both points and write about it.

In the meantime, perhaps someone else who stops by has a good reference for you. I know that there are some out there, but I need to dig around a bit.

Thanks for you openness with this topic. Also, thank you for your patience with us…and for choosing to pray rather than protest!

The other important thing not note is that the people that work in the temple are not all decked out in costly robes and expensive head pieces etc. Their clothes are all in white and as simple and as plain as the clothing of those coming to the temple. Everyone is dressed virtually the same(except the bride in her wedding dress). The only thing that really distinguishes a worker is a small name tag, so if you need help or direction you know who to ask. And as Eric mentioned there is no cost for a wedding at the temple, unless you consider tithing a cost (one must be a full tithe payer, among other things, before they can get a recommend to go in) but none of the people performing the ceremony is paid for their service. All temple workers volunteer their time to do this. These are the things that make the difference from what “Smith distained”.

Two things to keep in mind here when reading what Christ told his critics. Eternal marriage is a very sacred thing and for that reason there is not a lot of general talk about it, and Jesus viewed it the same way back then, so he is not going to try and get into the details with those trying to find fault with his teachings. So it was sufficient for them that he explained that abiding by that law was not what brought eternal marriage.

Also we know that not everyone is the same in the resurrection as Paul explained, some have the glory of the Sun, some of the moon and others of the stars. Part of that distinction of glory has to do with eternal relationships and marriage. For some the glory will be similar to that of angels who are not married. But the scriptures are clear that the promise for everyone is not to be equal with angels. For others, who are joint hairs with Christ (who is above the angels) their glory will be like that of the Sun, and in that state of joint hairs, neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord.

When we were at Temple Square last year we saw a model of the SLC Temple that included a cut away exposing all the rooms. The Church seems more open in discussing the ceremonies that take place in Temples. The missionary at Temple Square kept telling us that what takes place in the Temple is sacred not secret. Temples are truly beautiful buildings-I have visited the grounds of the Temples in Hawaii, Utah and Washington D.C. and when the Philadelphia Temple is completed and has its open house I plan on being there. GraceforGrace-I’m glad you sensed the Lord’s peace in such a deep way-I must confess that the Grand Canyon or Zion National Park are places where I have most powerfully experienced the peace of God. Ken-I have to say that your explanation to Cal on marriage falls a bit short and is unsatisfactory. Jesus held back on nothing!

Christ knew that when speaking to these that have “ears but cannot hear”, it was pointless to teach them doctrine or concepts they could not understand. That is why he taught in parables. In a way, speaking in parables is in fact a form of holding back. It was only after his true follows asked for an explanation that he expounded on the principles he was teaching. For those who did not truly care or were just looking for ways to find fault in his teaching they were just simple stories of little meaning. But to say that Christ never held back is so not true. When he was brought to trial he did not speak out in his defense. His accusers were wrong on so many levels, but he held back because he knew had to go through this for you and me. And we are eternally grateful that he was willing to hold back for us.

I suspect that for many who heard Christ parables (especially his critics) walked away thinking “that fell short and was unsatisfactory, for it sounds nothing like the laws we have from Moses”. But for others they were intrigued, and wanted to her more of this new doctrine, and asked “what does this mean?” Pease explain the meaning and teach us more. Yet the words that were heard by all were the same. Always, the ear hears what it want to hear, and disregards the rest.

Hey Ken-I wasn’t attacking you-I just expected a more thoughtful answer! An exchange on a blog (where the purpose is to clarify and dialogue) is hardly the same as our Savior’s exhange with the religious teachers of his day (and I hope you’re not putting Cal and I in the same league as those boys!). I hear what you’re saying, however, and I don’t want to get into semantics, when everything is said and done Jesus held nothing back-He gave His all for us. As one of your Prophets said-he took a “lickin” for us. To get back to the issue-I would love to hear the Scriptural/theological justification for the belief that our earthly families are forever in light of some Scriptures that appear to say otherwise.

I make no assignments for anyone, I only point out that we all hear (or read what we want) I include myself in that.

I do think I gave some points that were rather thoughtful and worth discussing before discarding and wanting something more. First do you agree that in the resurrection there are differing levels of glory? Then, in the resurrection are we as the angels? or as joint heirs with Christ? If the answer to both is yes, then is Christ’s glory the same as the angels? Or is it possible for some their glory will be on par with the angels and for some their glory will be on par with Christ?

Christ did say “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine…” This type of holding back is very appropriate and something Christ lived not just taught.

Ken-I believe angelic beings to be a seperate creation from mankind-we will stand in judgement of angels someday. I believe in differing degrees of glory-as an elderly member of my church expressed it-some of us will have an overflowing ten gallon bucket and some of us an overflowing thimble-but either way we will overflow with the joy of the Lord. What do you think?
Yes-Jesus was silent before his accusers (as foretold in prophecy) and yes his followers were in the dark regarding his teachings so often-they were unenlightened without the Spirit of the Living God within them-that would come when God poured out his Spirit on Pentecost. Even when our Savior spoke clearly (such as when he spoke of his inpending death) they totally missed it. I’m not sure I would call that holding back-but I will agree to disagree agreeably! So what my understanding is-when it comes to being sealed to your family-there is no clear Scriptural basis as this is something mysterious-that Christ “held back” from teaching-is that correct?

Graceforgrace-I forgot to mention that I love what that gentlemen told that couple-perfect! I’m going to borrow it for a wedding I’ll be taking part in this weekend. There was a study done a while back that said that men who kiss their wives every morning live on average 5 years longer, are involved in fewer accidents and make 25 percent more money! (I think the man who conducted the test was named Dr. A Sazbo-or something like that).

I’ll see about taking a crack at some of the questions, although not directly quote scripture. As has already been explained, Mormon weddings in the Temple are very simple affairs. The cost or lack of cost is pretty much based on the desires of the couple. They could just as much go into a temple, get the sealing blessing, and walk out as they could decide on elaborate pre and post marriage sealing activities. Every part of the ceremony is volunteer. No one is paid beyond, as was mentioned, the usual tithe to the LDS Church required of any participating Saint as that funds Temple building among other things.

My own take on Jesus’ answer about marriage was that he was sidestepping the actual question. As was his style, he went for the heart of what they were looking for rather than a direct answer. They wanted him to condemn the Mosaic Law as they understood it by calling the ancestors lechers or praise them and be accused of lechery himself. If all of the “unions” were done on the Earth then there wouldn’t be any question one way or the other who married and belonged to whom. Instead, he stated “they neither marry or are given in marriage in Heaven,” or as a Mormon would say, if they have to decide in the next life who is married to whom then its already too late for any of them to be together. I would add, the position of marriage itself is rather ambiguous in the New Testament and so I don’t take much stock in one viewpoint as making the case for the whole. It can easily be said that, despite Jesus saying marriage is ordained of God, he and Paul also denigrates it as a lower form of relationships. There is enough confusion on the subject in the Bible to make heart aches for Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons alike.

“So what my understanding is-when it comes to being sealed to your family-there is no clear Scriptural basis as this is something mysterious-that Christ “held back” from teaching-is that correct?”

It should be well known that marriage is described at least once as a mystery in the Bible. Christ clearly stated that once married then nothing short of God can take the union apart. I think there is clearly is a scriptural basis for sealing (although the word isn’t used), but I think its muted by the not as clear related scriptures as I noted above.

I also think we have to be careful with who “dogs” and “swine” statements represent, but those are the quotes of Jesus so he meant someone and not pigs and canines. So far I don’t count anyone here in that catagory, but care has to be given who we share what with and I mean that in the general term for any personal thing. This is one of the reasons I don’t believe in watching or participating in very personal true life television, other than its disgusting.

“The Church seems more open in discussing the ceremonies that take place in Temples.”

I would say both yes and no. There might be more words said without hesitation about what goes on in the temple, but there isn’t more expository on the subject. Right now I am doing research for my own “virtual temple tour” and so am reading up on official discussions to verify what I can talk about and how. My method is pretty clear, whatever I find in LDS General Conference and LDS Church magazines, like Ensign, seems to be fair game. So far I haven’t found anything said in 2012 that wasn’t said in 1975, except the preponderance of pamphlets and magazines on the subject increased.

I have looked it over. What it says about differentiating between being married and being given in marriage is something I had in the back of my mind when I originally brought up the eternal marriage issue. Because Jesus said “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage,” instead of, “marriages will not continue,” I had a bit of doubt in my mind that the evangelical view could be biblically proven.

Jettboy said some things worth considering, so I reexamined the story of the Sadducees’ challenge of Jesus in Matthew 22:23-33 and checked commentaries I have.

Before I get to the thoughts that came out of my reexamination, I’d first like to say something about what I believe to be the lack of importance of our differences over eternal marriage. There’s a lot of stuff in the Bible about the value of being able to determine the level of importance of things. For example, Romans 14:1 (NIV) says, “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.” Then it gives an example: “One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.” A wise man can tell the difference between a vital teaching and a fringe issue.

Suppose for a minute that Jesus was in fact eliminating marriage from the next life. Then how come the Holy Spirit shows up in the temples during eternal marriage (you call it sealing) ceremonies?

Tell me if I’m wrong, but my conviction is that the sealing ceremonies, although not perfectly according to God’s truth in every way, are a celebration of marriage and love, which God loves and instituted. I imagine also that the minister is man in whose heart the Spirit lives in abundance, and that what he says is said to glorify the heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, most of the people attending are God-honoring Christians who have an expectation that God will show up and bless the ceremony. Romans 14:5-6 says, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

Because thanks is given to God, God shows up at the sealings. He doesn’t require a perfect faith or a perfect doctrine, but when he is honored, he is pleased and shows up. Hence, GraceforGrace felt peace.

——–
OK, now back to the thoughts that came to me from my reexamination of Matthew 22:23-33. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but you did ask for my thoughts.

One thing I discovered was Romans 7:2 where it says that “a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.” In light of this verse, one might say that if a marriage of this present age was going to continue in the next life, the marriage would have to be renewed, since death ends it according to the law of Moses. This might explain why Jesus said, “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage,” instead of, “marriages will not continue.” Do you see what I’m saying? Perhaps the Sadducees knew the law ended marriage at death, and Jesus knew that they knew, so he spoke of a restarting of the covenant of marriage in eternity.

Anyway, learning that, took care of my little hang up of doubt about whether Matthew 22 eliminates eternal marriage. Romans 7:2 also counteracts the third point of the FAIR article. (Not that I’m 100% positive that the evangelical view is correct. I have to leave a little room for teachability unless I’m super-positive!)

I do agree with the first two points made in the FAIR article.
Number One was that modern “revelation isn’t necessarily biblicist in nature, rather it is through a prophet’s revelation.” What they explained, as I recall, is that there doesn’t have to be biblical support for a doctrine, only that a doctrine cannot disagree with the Bible. I’ll go along with that.

The second point made by the FAIR article is that the Sadducees were trying to set Jesus up. Jettboy mentioned this as well. My NIBC commentary agrees. It says they were trying to make fun of Jesus’ belief in a resurrection.

Great insights and research and thank you for your openness and willingness to have a dialogue.

I think Mormons could learn from you. We tend to think we have a monopoly on truth as the “one true church”.

I remember going to a Evangelical Christian church service and feeling God’s Spirit there. As a kid I hadn’t really paid attention and it wasn’t until I read the Book of Mormon that I recognized the Spirit. Therefore, when I attended a Ev. church service years later and felt the spirit, I was surprised.

I agree with your comments that God sends His spirit and peace to all of us in his mercy even though our worship may not be completely pure or as He would do it necessarily.

My thoughts as I read Romans 7:2 are that Paul is talking about the Law of Moses and also, Jesus is to the Saducees as well. Jesus has a higher law after he was resurrected. Perhaps eternal marriage is part of the higher law?

Usually what happens in the Temple stays in the Temple. The sealing ceremony is where I received my witness that the “bound in heaven” part is true. Being sealed is way different than being legally shacked up, both of which are allowed in our Church.

Interesting conversation! Hey-graceforgrace-I appreciate your encounter with the Holy Spirit-what an awesome experience it is to be in the presence of God our Father. We have been talking a bit about Heaven-yesterday I visited an 80 year old man in the hospital-when his wife arrived and asked him if anyone had been there he said, “Jesus Christ came to me and I saw the most beautiful trees and the greenest grass-the colors were beautiful and the light was amazing-and I saw my dad…”
We had such a sense of the presence of the Lord in that hospital room when he finished speaking-I cried on my way home but it was tears of gratitude for my faith in God. What do people do who do not have faith in Jesus Christ? Jack was the sweetest man I have ever known-he even thanked the nurse as she fiddled with his pik line. Jack went home to be with Jesus this morning. I picture him sitting under that beautiful tree perhaps talking to his earthly father (and his heavenly)

I have a family member who died and went towards Heaven and saw a family member and felt the presence of God as well. She said it was the most amazing feeling and she didn’t want to come back, but God told her that she had a choice. She could choose to stay with Him or go back to her family to help them. She chose to return, but the pain she felt here compared to the peace in His presence was almost unbearable.

I think God graces us with glimpses of His love, but we really have no clue the glory that awaits those of us who love Him.

You showed you love Him by visiting the man in the hospital. Greater love hath no man than to lay his life down for another….you laid your life down by putting your needs to the side and caring for the man in his sickness. You are a great example of how a disciple should be.

GraceforGrace, your thought that the Law of Moses concerning marriage is overridden by the new covenant is worth consideration. My wife just said to me, “I think you’re stuck with me, honey.” 🙂

I also noticed that it says in Gospel Principles that “Adam & Eve were married before there was any death in the world” (p. 219). Gen. 1:28 & 2:24 indicate that this does appear to be the case.

However, further down the same page Gospel Principles says “our exaltation depends on marriage.” There’s another issue to iron out. What about those who are called by God to be single (1 Cor. 7)?

I tell my local Mormon friend that he’ll be shocked when he sees me in the celestial kingdom with him. He doesn’t seem to think it’s funny!

——–
To everyone:
Speaking of peeks of our eternal home, I just finished reading an amazing and anointed book by Richard Sigmund called “My Time in Heaven.” (My local Mormon friend has agreed to look at it even though it’s not a Mormon book.) It is probably the most detailed account of a visit to heaven that I’ve ever read! You’ll bask in your future as you read it. God has been SO good to us!

I have part II now up about ordinances and covenants. Although what I will say about the Temple is limited because of its sacred nature, If anyone has any questions or comments with what I write then I’ll do my best to answer. Also, I don’t like wondering if I am posting to dead air. The purpose for the series is to help people understand why a Temple is so important. Hopefully Mormons can learn something as well.

I appreciate the articles on your blog. Due to time limits, I haven’t read all of your part II yet.

The first question that popped up in my mind as I read it has to do with your quote of President Thomas S. Monson, who said, “temples are more than stone and mortar. They are filled with faith and fasting. They are built of trials and testimonies. They are sanctified by sacrifice and service.”

I’d like to hear an expansion on that. Are there prayer rooms in the temples where people can come to pray any time of the day? Are there people who specialize in prayer, who make it a discipline to pray regularly and at length for the activities in the temples? (We call them “intercessors” in the charismatic movement.)

When President Monson mentioned “trials and testimonies” was he referring to the building of the temples?

I’ve complained about non-Mormon Christians not being allowed in the temples, but on the other hand, as it is now, most non-Mormons would probably contaminate the atmosphere with their cynicism, criticism and false judgmentalism.

——-
You said that grace and the atonement of Christ were at the center of the activities. That would explain the thickness of the presence of the Lord in the temples!

——-
Is there a healing room, where sick people go to have ministers with the gift of healing lay hands on them for healing? (We have an international Healing Rooms organization just for that sort of thing where miracles of healing are common.)

Have you yourself received an endowment? Did you feel the Spirit of God come upon you at this time? Did you feel an increase in peace, joy, or empowerment to overcome sin or spread the gospel? (I realize that you may receive something even though you may not consciously feel anything at the time of endowment.) (We in the charismatic movement usually call this an impartation or an ordination or getting hit by the Spirit—whatever.)

Cal, I answered your questions about temple building and prayer at my second article linked above. I will answer your question about my endowment here as my series is not about myself. I’m sure graceforgrace can add or share anything if so chooses.

Yes, I have received the endowment, and no I didn’t at first feel (or rather recognize) the Spirit of God my first time. I am sure there are plenty of people who do, but many stories are told about the shock of the experience. Even one of our previous prophets David O’ McKay told how he was at first troubled by his going. You have to understand that besides baptism and communion, there is little symbolism or liturgy that goes on in LDS worship. All of a sudden you are thrust into a world and ceremony that is full of signs, symbols, representations, high covenant making, and mystery. This can be total 180 degrees from simple songs, sermons, and lessons. Some people sadly never recover from the unfamiliar.

As someone who loves literature and history, and had a faith in the LDS Church and its teachings, I was determined to understand. Through prayer, study of both scripture and LDS approved literature, and most importantly going back, I developed a love and appreciation for the Temple. Think of it as wrestling with the Lord like the ancients. Looking back my problem was that I went at first out of curiosity and not enlightenment. I was spiritually prepared, but too grounded in the old ways. Today I am amazed by the new things I learn each time I participate and do feel the Spirit of God and revelation. I now feel “peace, joy, [and] empowerment” each time. The best part is going with my wife.

I’ve enjoyed reading about the temple and have appreciated people sharing their temple experiences. Here is a question for you LDS folks-what is your understanding of “exaltation?” The Ensign really doesn’t refer to it that often and when it does it isn’t very clear to me. My understanding has been shaped by what I have heard in the Evangelical world from people like Martin and Decker-yet what they write doesn’t seem to line up with what I have read from LDS sources. Thanks.

Jettboy, your testimony is interesting. Thanks for your honesty about certain Mormons being at first leery of all the new liturgy. Now you have a love and appreciation for the temples and their rituals.

Is endowment a one-time affair, or can you go through it repeatedly?

I just checked out what Wikipedia says about Mormon endowment. In part, here’s what it says:

“In Mormonism, the endowment is an ordinance (ritual ceremony) designed to prepare participants to become kings, queens, priests, and priestesses in the afterlife. As part of the ceremony, participants take part in a scripted reenactment of the Biblical creation and fall of Adam and Eve. They also are taught highly symbolic gestures and passwords, thought to be needed to pass by angels guarding the way to heaven, and are instructed not to reveal these gestures and passwords. The ceremony also includes a washing and anointing, and receipt of a “new name” which they are not to reveal to others except at a certain part in the ceremony, and the receipt of the temple garments, which Mormons then are expected to wear under their clothing day and night throughout their life. As practiced today in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the endowment also consists of a series of covenants (promises to God) which participants make, such as a covenant of consecration to the LDS Church. All Latter-day Saints who choose to serve as missionaries for the LDS Church or who choose to contract a celestial marriage in an LDS Church temple must first complete the endowment ceremony.”

Is that accurate?
I can see why people say Freemasonry influenced Joseph Smith.
To be honest, I am leery, as others have been, of such things as gestures and passwords. It doesn’t sound like the New Covenant that Jesus established in which one can enter heaven by living a life of faith and be rewarded according to what one does BY THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST. I know you do also recognize the imperative of faith. That’s what makes you a Christian organization. But learning passwords that will enable you to pass by angels that are guarding the way to heaven sounds too easy.

But if the temple ceremonies help you grow closer to the Lord, who am I to come against them? It’s hard for me judge something I’ve never been through.

I can relate to your experience in some respects. When Helen & I visited the Brownsville revival in Pensacola, Florida, about 10 or 15 years ago, I didn’t receive anything from the Spirit during the first two nights we were there because I was too busy observing and analyzing the new styles of worship.

Its a bit too accurate for my taste, or rather too revealing. Cal, I admit that the matter-of-fact description bothers me as it comes a bit close to casually describing sacred things. This isn’t my blog, so I will just move on to the questions.

I believe without a doubt that freemasonry did influence Joseph Smith as the evidence is overwhelming (I also believe in Evolution for the same reason and that doesn’t get in the way of my faith in The Garden either). That doesn’t take away from the revelation of the Temple because it acted as a template for far greater truths.

“To be honest, I am leery, as others have been, of such things as gestures and passwords.”

Don’t be so literal. The Temple is symbolic, and as we should all know symbols represent something, they are not the thing. Don’t worry, too many Mormons fall into the same Western scientific mindset. What is far more important is the covenants those are supposed to represent. For instance, when you salute the flag you are not showing importance to that flag, but the values of the nation. Its a gesture that in and of itself is worthless. If someone is memorizing the symbols, but not internalizing the message, then it won’t help them in the end.

Your analogy of saluting the flag is very helpful. I will remember that. It makes sense. I can also receive your explanation of why the influence of freemasonry need not be a concern.

I’d like to ask more about the covenants that the symbols represent, but I suspect I’ve asked enough. I certainly don’t want to offend anyone.

It’s hard for me to relate to the idea of keeping certain religious activities to oneself. We don’t do that in the evangelical/charismatic world. The closest I can come to that in my own life is my personal prayer time. I prefer to think I’m not being overheard. I’m not sure why. Is there some pride behind that?—prayer is a display of my utter dependence on someone else. There are probably several reasons.

I think we non-Mormons tend to think that if someone is hiding something, he’s got something to hide, if you know what I mean. I know that’s not necessarily true, but it seems to me that it would be in the best interest of the LDS, as well as in God’s best interest, to be open about temple ceremonies. Ex-Mormons are making temple rituals public anyway, so wouldn’t the LDS rather reveal them in their own way so that they can explain them as they’re being released? Your analogy of saluting the flag is an example of this.

P.S. The LDS has informed me that they’re staking out a piece of land in Hartford, Connecticut, for a temple. I plan on attending the open house for that!

I’ve been thinking about signs & symbols. We non-Mormons put the sign of the fish on bumper stickers and so on. It would be silly for someone to come along and say, “That’s not biblical. Jesus never instituted the sign of the fish.” We’d say “Get outta here!”

Here I am concerned about Mormon legalism and I’m the one being legalistic!

I like how you apply being a Christian and not judging Mormons for their signs, etc, but judging yourself. You area a great example. We as Mormons could learn a lot from you by not judging other religious faiths.

I appreciate your discussion. I feel the same way Jettboy does in that the symbols are representations of sacred things.

Joseph Smith decided to use Freemason concepts to support the symbols and signs. He thought that Freemasonry was a degenerate form of ancient temple worship and that God was leading him to re-instate it (see Rough Stone Rolling for a reference to that).

When I read this, it made more sense to me. In truth, God could have used any type of symbol, but the point is that our minds are challenged and our Spirits enlarged as we worship without everything being revealed all at once. Jesus taught that way in the Bible. Those who weren’t spiritually ready to learn didn’t understand his parables while those who were did.

I have a deep love and respect for the Latter-day Saints and I hope that is clear in the way I seek to express myself. I sense the spirit of Jesus Christ in Aaron and many others who take part in our conversations. I think the Temples are beautiful buildings and I can appreciate the sense of peace they provoke. However, as a person who has Masons in his family-I am unable to wrap my brain around the belief that Freemasonry is a corrupted form of ancient Hebrew Temple worship-the heart of the Jewish Temple was the sacrificial system-and not Freemason rituals. Does the book Rough Stone Rolling expand on the LDS view of ancient temple worship? I’m going to have to add that to my Summer reading!

I’ve never been to a freemason ceremony, so I really can’t speak to that. Personally, I struggled with concepts in the Temple and to some extent still do.

One thing is certain though and that is that I can’t deny the feeling of the Holy Spirit I feel in the temple. That is really the only thing that helps me have faith that it is something from God. If I sit and try to logically make sense of it, I drive myself crazy because it doesn’t. However, when I let my doubts and concerns go and just open my mind to the Holy Spirit, I am taught in ways inside the temple that I haven’t been taught anywhere else on a spiritual level.

Thanks, Grace, for your explanations. That’s a good point that “our minds are challenged and our Spirits enlarged as we worship without everything being revealed all at once.”

Is that one reason temple rituals are kept under wraps? I don’t understand that. Don Piper testifies in his book “90 Minutes in Heaven” that for many years he didn’t tell anyone—not even his wife—about his experience in heaven. He said it was sacred to him. Then one day a friend convinced him that his story could be a blessing to others if he told others. Now 100s of thousands of others have been blessed by his story as his book is a big seller.

Are you recommending Rough Stone Rolling to Doug and me? His summer is already tied up reading a book I recommended to him (ha, ha).

I would say the temple ceremony is kept “secret” mainly because for it to make sense, one has to spiritually prepare for it. I have gone into the temple without being spiritually prepared and the ceremonies are confusing and make absolutely no sense at all to me. However, I have gone in with a humble spirit, having prayed and asked for guidance and my experience is completely different. I have been taught by God in the temple in ways I have never been taught anywhere else.

I didn’t know what you meant at first, maybe I still don’t. It sounds like you’re saying, “There wouldn’t be any practical purpose in telling the details of the ceremony to someone who isn’t prepared because it wouldn’t make sense to them. And non-Mormons aren’t prepared.”

If that’s what you meant, no harm would come to anyone if the ceremonies were fully revealed other than that you might be ridiculed even more. So I suspect there are more reasons for the undercover-ness.

Are participants in the ceremonies specifically told not to tell certain things, or it is more that the participants don’t want to tell certain things, or both?

Do participants believe that the specialness of the experience will be lost if they don’t keep to themselves what happened?

——–
Another question I have regarding the endowment is, “Is it during the endowment that Mormons have a prophetic word (personal prophecy) spoken to them? I think you call it a Patriarchal blessing.

Just to clarify, during the endowment the participants covenant with God not to reveal details of the ceremony. That is why although the information may be available to people who have not attended the temple, those who participate generally will not disclose anything further, based on their promise to God not to do so. Providing further details would be a breach of their covenant with God (unless God provided otherwise).

A patriarchal blessing is separate from the temple (and to my knowledge you do not necessarily need to be a temple-recommend holding member to receive one). The blessing is performed by a person called to serve in the position as a Patriarch. Many members value the counsel received in a patriarchal blessing as personal scripture for them individually (however, they are usually not publicly shared for several reasons, one being possible embarrassment to the person if certain blessings that are conditional on the righteousness of the individual are not achieved). These blessings are similar to those blessings directed to different individuals in the Doctrine and Covenants.

I would say that the truths of masonry are eternal, although corrupted. Not that Joseph Smith was correct in his assessment that the actual ceremonies extended anciently as experienced by them. Those who developed it got what they did from somewhere. He obviously believed Mason’s own story on it’s creation. I tend to believe its a patchwork of ancient parts and creative bulk of additions. I believe revelation took it, rearanged, revamped, and made it relevant to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Rough Stone Rolling doesn’t argue its ancient sources, but only what Joseph Smith believed. It is a professional biography by a believer that has for the most been praised.

Cal, they are incomparable, meaning they were written for different reasons in different times with very different methodology. An autobiography (that focuses on someone else) and an historian written biography are apples and oranges. I much prefer Rough Stone Rolling for a more rounded look at Joseph’s personality while the other is of mostly historical interest.

The one written by his mother is a very touching account, but also paints Joseph Smith (as any mother would for a son) as a person who did no wrong. The Bushman account leaves no stones unturned and does a pretty good job of being objective without overly apologetic or overly critical.

Those are my two cents on the books…oh and the Bushman account is 4 times longer so you learn a lot more about Joseph Smith.

I totally missed your question above about secrecy. I would go with what Davishook said. The ceremonies of the Temple contain vows of secrecy that in and of itself declares what happens in detail off limits to those who don’t attend. Why they are secret is anyone’s guess, although it does have to do with their holy nature. There has been a discussion if the secrecy vows are in relation to certain parts of the ceremony or the whole experience. That might be why you find some Mormons more open to discussion than others. We each have our own comfort levels. For me if it hasn’t been mentioned by the top leadership or in officially sanctioned sources then I won’t talk about it. I am finding, however, a lot of generalities have been mentioned.

Patriarchal blessings are given to anyone (no need for a Temple recommend) who is 18 or older and prepared for adulthood. Not sure if there has been younger. There are two purposes for it. The first is assigning, or revealing, the person’s tribal lineage of the house of Israel as there are blessings that are associated with each. Second is a blessing as personal scripture to guide them with spiritual life choices. Individuals in the church are called to this particular position and are instructed to remain in tune with the holy spirit of prophecy. As you might be familiar with, it is patterned after the father’s blessings to sons found in the Old Testament and also in the Book of Mormon.

You wrote some stuff I’ve never heard before and which I found fascinating and reassuring. It has almost always been true that the more I learn about the LDS the more innocent it becomes in my perception.

Your comment about soaking in contemplative prayer in the Celestial Room reminds me of the “soaking sessions” some charismatic churches have where people just sit quietly and soak up the presence of God, often with soft, spiritual music playing.

You said something to the effect that people could linger in the Celestial Room as long as they pleased. This helped. Believe it or not, I imagined Mormons being marched from room to room like captured slaves—don’t ever peek in THIS closet, grit your teeth and brace for a prick in your finger as we take a blood sample—that sort of thing. Sort of like Hotel California—you can check in, but you can’t check out.

Of particular interest to me was your interpretation of the tearing of the veil between the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place in the Jewish temple after Christ’s death. We non-Mormons would agree completely that God was signifying that God was now more accessible. The blood of Jesus, being far superior to the blood of animals, has provided a more lasting and more complete forgiveness, and access to the Father.

Quick question for you since Cal brought it up….I’m from Idaho as well (Burley). Where are you from?

Cal, just in case you’re curious…I was raised by Mormon parents but my mom left when I was young and we attended various Christian denominations such as Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran. After I returned to Mormonism, she has bounced around numerous times and is now attending an Anglican church.

I agree with most of what Joseph Smith taught, but not all. Polygamy is one area that I don’t agree with…especially that one must enter into polygamy in order to be saved or exhaulted.

graceforgrace, I do remember quite a bit about your history. (I still have your testimony on my website. [At this point, you’re the only Mormon on my site. {I’ll add others sometime (Enough rabbit trailing already)}]). As I recall, you were bitter toward the LDS for a time. I wonder if you ever visited a charismatic church.

I can’t remember much of what I had read about entering into polygamy in order to get into the highest degree of the highest kingdom. I had forgotten whether that was an evangelical exaggeration or fact. That’s another heavy subject. Of course I know that no one in the LDS is allowed to practice polygamy during this life. However, do sealing ceremonies for a second wife take place during this life? (I’m off topic.)

Born into a Mormon family and raised in Southeast Idaho (I don’t like specifics). Do I agree with everything Joseph Smith taught? I don’t have any major disagreements, but its like asking if I agree with everything in the encyclopedia of 30 years ago. Lots of details would be arguable. I gave an example above about Joseph Smith’s beliefs on the origins of Masonry. To paraphrase him, he isn’t perfect, but I don’t think there is any reason for me to question his prophetic work.

I’m making my way through ‘Rough Stone Rolling’ which only confirms my prior thoughts about Joseph Smith-he is a fascinating man. While I do not believe him to be a prophet of God-I find him very likable. At the same time he is not an easy man to grasp-I am unable to wrap my brain around him.. What is striking about the church, and this is mentioned in the book, is how similar in doctrine it was to the other churches around it when it was founded. The unique doctrines and beliefs that mark the LDS church come later in stages and some/much of it from BY. Having read portions of the BOM it seems to present God in a much more traditional way then the later revelations did. It is also striking that almost from the very beginning Joseph Smith had a powerful influence upon people-and they either loved him or wanted to harm him.

You mentioned that the LDS started out with doctrines more similar to other churches. That is one reason I believe Joseph started as a prophetically gifted spiritual man, then later on he backslid—at least to some extent. I guess that puts me in the middle of you and the other boys here.

It’s nice we can all disagree agreeably. The grace of our Lord is at work among us, no doubt.

That’s an interesting thought Cal. To believe what you do would mean that the Book of Mormon is indeed true, as that came early-is that what you believe? I totally agree with you about disagreeing agreeably!

I think that to believe the Book of Mormon either is true or is not true is an oversimplification. The Book of Mormon comes across to me as the most powerful book I’ve ever read besides the Bible, but I don’t consider myself qualified to conclude that it NEVER disagrees with the Bible. To begin with, I’d have to have a perfect understanding of the Bible, which I don’t expect to have this side of heaven.

I disagree with the important LDS teaching that “the Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray” (Gospel Principles, p. 42). That’s sort of like the Catholic teaching of the infallibility of the Pope. I don’t believe ANYONE is infallible. I’m sure you agree. In fact, it’s amazing how many great men and women of God in church history fell away—and I’m not even counting biblical figures like Solomon.

One prophetically gifted man, Steve Thompson of MorningStar Ministries, said that he prayed one time that God would make him into the greatest prophet who has ever lived. He said the Lord said back to him, “OK, then, be prepared to make the greatest number of mistakes a prophet has ever made”! Steve’s point was that we learn through mistakes. We should not be so afraid we’re going to make a mistake in hearing the voice of the Lord that we don’t dare ever speak what we think he is saying to us.

Cal-I agree with what you are saying, I would rather attempt something great for our God and fail, then do nothing at all. I’m not sure how that plays into the BoM being true or not. I find the BoM to be, for the most part, doctrinally true but is it historically true? Did Jesus Christ visit his other sheep in America?
I’m familiar with MorningStar-aren’t they the ones who use the former PTL Heritage Grand for office space? If so I’m on their Elijah e-mail list. You have a glorious day as well brother Cal!

Did Jesus visit his other sheep in America? A big question. Maybe our buddy Graceforgrace will eventually have another post on that. Or our little buddy, Jettboy.
Fiction can be very anointed but I’ve never heard of fictional book as good as the BOM. What’s more, since the authors of the BOM did not tell us it was fiction, they would have been deceiving us. If they were deceiving us, it’s hard to imagine them being so anointed. (My wife tells me I think too much.)

Of course believing Mormons will have a very different answer to your questions about the BOM than you or those not of the faith. The fact that you entertain the spiritual value it can possess is far ahead of most outsiders that dismiss it as Biblical “fanfiction” on a good day. Although personally I and officially the LDS Church holds it as historically true, there is still a discuss among Mormons themselves how true to reality it is. This can range anywhere from how accurate the writers were, how much of himself Joseph Smith wrote into the translation, and if there is any more validity than spiritual truths.

Then again, these seem to be the same arguments that the Bible has run into since the mid 19th Century. I guess you could say with a wink that the BOM was ahead of its time on the nature of Scripture. By the way, those Mormons who decide that the BOM is nothing more than an elaborate “Pilgrims Progress” can remain members. My own experience, however, is that they don’t stay. The very existence causes a conundrum because you can dismiss the book, but there are witnesses beyond Joseph Smith. You try to dismiss them and the book still stands there to be read.

I do think you misinterpret, ““the Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray,” as it has nothing to do with the infallibility of the leadership. The rest of it reads something like, “or God will replace that person in authority.” Joseph Smith was warned that he too would be replaced if he didn’t do what the Lord commanded. It has more to do with the authority of the Priesthood will not be taken from the earth again than the perfection of one person or his teachings.

“Did Jesus visit his other sheep in America?” I believe so, but that to me is religiously self-evident because of the faith I hold as a Mormon. The Book of Mormon states he visited other sheep everywhere. Not sure exactly what the question is trying to get at. Are you asking if there is evidence for that visit? I could give you books and articles on that whole subject, but most Mormons recognize it is as circumstantial at best. Then again, I would contend that faith itself comes by circumstantial evidence and cannot be proved.

Jettboy, I’d like to talk more about the “infallibility” issue sometime, but I’m short on time now. We’re leaving on vacation Monday a.m.
It’s important to me that I understand LDS beliefs. I never want to misrepresent you in any of my “official” writing. (When I’m blogging, I’m more careless.)
How do you know Joseph was still serving faithfully in the office of a prophet during the last decade or last few years or months of his life?

Mormons I’ve talked to in the past have led me to believe that the Church teaches that Joseph maintained his assignment from God as a prophet right up until he was assassinated; therefore, everything he said when he was claiming to speak for God was from God.

“How do you know Joseph was still serving faithfully in the office of a prophet during the last decade or last few years or months of his life?”

If I would have felt he was no longer serving faithfully, it could be at any time much earlier than his last decade or months. It could be right after publishing the Book of Mormon, organizing a church under presumed priesthood authority, ordained Apostles for the claimed last days, the Kirtland Temple, the failed bank (that almost stopped Mormonism), re-translation of the Bible by revelation, Kinderhook plates, the Book of Abraham translation clearly from a typical Egyptian Book of the Dead, Polygamy the biggy, the Masonic-like Temple ceremonies, Theosis, and etc. Many have left for any number of reasons. For me there is one spirit that speaks for the truth of all of them. I stay because the Lord has answered my questions and concerns to my satisfaction with spirit and mind. Joseph Smith died a Martyr like many a prophet. I think section 135 of the Doctrine and Covenants, although in strong language, about sums up my feelings.

The question reminds me of the time when disciples left Jesus because of the harder teachings. Christ asked if his closest Apostles would leave with the others. In John 6:68 we read, “Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” Not to compare Joseph Smith the messenger to Jesus Christ the Savior, but the same can be said for myself. I feel that the whole of Joseph Smith’s life and mission, no matter how hard, contain the words of Jesus Christ and therefore eternal life. How do I know? Because the spirit tells me so as I understand it working in me. His weaknesses are like of all men (save Jesus only) and his words and works have a completeness that of its own makes sense.

I think Glen Back paved the way-I can’t tell you the number of people in my church who were convinced that he was an evangelical only to discover that he was LDS. We are a conflicted people when it comes to the Mormons. Everyday my son drives to a conservative Christian college with a Mitt sticker on his car.
I wonder how the Latter-day Saints will hold up being in the spotlight so much this upcoming election-a scary and exciting time for them I suppose.
Enjoyed the article Cal-thanks!

Thanks for your answer, Jettboy, . . . which was . . .
“How do I know? Because the spirit tells me so as I understand it working in me. His weaknesses are like of all men (save Jesus only) and his words and works have a completeness that of its own makes sense.”

I think you answered my question, but it wasn’t everything I was looking for—my fault, not yours.

I have to confess why I asked it:
The last time I met with a couple Mormon missionaries, I told them what I felt the Lord, over a years-long process of seeking his understanding from his Spirit, had shown me. And that was that if someone prays, “Is the Church true?” the Holy Spirit will impress on the seeker’s heart that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches a gospel that leads to forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and a glorious life in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit throughout eternity. In sum, “Yes, it is true.” (This explains what once puzzled me—their confidence that the Church IS true.)

Then I told the missionaries that if there was one thing I could get Mormons to do it would be this: to get them to pray specifically about each and every doctrine of Joseph Smith’s. That is, I would like them to ask the heavenly Father according to the principle laid down in James 1:5-8 and the corresponding verse in the Book of Mormon about each and every Mormon teaching, and not take a stance on any issue until the Holy Spirit has clearly spoken.

This takes time and devotion, pressing into God like his wisdom was a pearl of great price—which it is.

So my real question is, “Have you prayed specifically about each and every teaching of Joseph Smith?”

If Mormons will do that—and if non-Mormons do that sort of thing as well—then I believe with all my heart that our theological differences will come down. And the devil will be very unhappy. And God will be very happy!

What do you think? I mean God’s not going to tell you one thing and tell me something that’s opposed to it. He’s not like fleshly people who in the same breath say “Yes, yes,” and “No, no” (2 Cor. 1:17, NIV) (KJV says “yea yea, and nay nay”).

By the way, I hope you know that I celebrate your faith, and I know anyone can grow into a strong Christian right in the Church you’re in, loving one’s neighbor by the power of Christ’s Spirit almost as one loves one’s self. (Put a little smile after the word “almost.”)

Cal, my mention of completeness and then making a list of all the things that could have turned me off from the spiritual witness was because I understood what you are asking. I have prayed about and studied his life and teachings both pro and con. Each time the Lord has told my soul be still and know that I am God and Joseph my servant. Each and every Mormon teaching? Every one of them that I have found important enough to consider. Only God knows everything, but I have the spiritual witness of all I have encountered that can impact my salvation.

Jettboy, I have now read your article that focuses on marriage in the temples. One thing I like about the posts of yours that I’ve read so far is that they are sensitive to the comments of outsiders. That is, they try to clear up misconceptions and unfair criticisms of the LDS, and you do it with gentleness.

I’ll ring out an “Amen” to your last paragraph, which goes like this:

“What message does attending the temple have for Mormons? There are many that can be gleaned from repeated visits. Each one, no matter how simple, is that life exists after death. Indeed, that life like God and Christ is Eternal with no beginning and no end. We can proclaim with Paul, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1 Corinthians 15:19). For Mormons the temple represents here on Earth that hope beyond the veil of our mortality.”

Two questions pop up:

(1) I like your last paragraph so much that I’d like to know if, and where, there is a publication or post containing a quote of an LDS official that makes the same point as you did in that last sentence.

(2) How does the LDS teaching on the necessity of marriage for obtaining the highest place in the highest kingdom fit with Paul’s recommendation in 1 Cor. 7 to stay single—if one has that gift?

“Each temple built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands as an expression of the testimony of this people that God our Eternal Father lives, that He has a plan for the blessing of His sons and daughters of all generations, that His Beloved Son, Jesus the Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judea and crucified on the cross of Golgotha, is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, whose atoning sacrifice makes possible the fulfillment of that plan in the eternal life of each who accepts and lives the gospel. Every temple, be it large or small, old or new, is an expression of our testimony that life beyond the grave is as real and certain as is mortality. There would be no need for temples if the human spirit and soul were not eternal. Every ordinance performed in these sacred houses is everlasting in its consequences. While upon the earth the Lord conferred upon His chosen disciples the eternal priesthood, saying:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:19.)

This same authority was bestowed in this generation under the hands of Peter, James, and John, who had received it directly from the Lord. This power, to seal in the heavens that which is sealed upon the earth is exercised in these holy houses. Every one of us is subject to mortal death. But through the eternal plan made possible by the sacrifice of the Redeemer, all may go on to glories infinitely greater than any of the wondrous things of this life.”
– President Gordon B. Hinkley, May 1993.

“The temple is the house of the Lord. The basis for every temple ordinance and covenant—the heart of the plan of salvation—is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Every activity, every lesson, all we do in the Church, point to the Lord and His holy house. Our efforts to proclaim the gospel, perfect the Saints, and redeem the dead all lead to the temple. Each holy temple stands as a symbol of our membership in the Church, as a sign of our faith in life after death, and as a sacred step toward eternal glory for us and our families.”
-Elder Russell M. Nelson, April 2001.

As for your second question, it seems to me as stated by Paul that it is mostly personal advice. The main point to not give in to sex before marriage or adultery after. He also seems to be saying that a seperation is not a divorce, if a divorce is even spiritually possible once a couple is married. The official LDS response to this doesn’t exist far as I know, but then modern revelation on the importance and eternal nature of marriage is a type of response.

I wouldn’t mind answering those questions in a more private manner. You can e-mail me at melanath@yahoo(dot)com. The marriage and baptism was the last Temple tour post. If there is a subject you would like me to cover then I might do a series with your suggestion. I’m always open to an interesting and respectful conversation.

I love Jesus with all that I am. I am saddened that many facets of the LDS exclude people that haven’t met certain criteria. You must have a temple recommend to attend a temple wedding. That doesn’t sound like something that is pleasing to the Lord. What about friends, cousins etc that may not attend their loved ones wedding? Your religion is claiming the name of Christ yet excluding people that do not obey the traditions of men. I wanted all to come to my wedding…and let it be a witness of God’s love to them. Jesus and his unchanging word in the Bible is enough to take a sinner and by faith bring him into fullness of salvation. Then in your relationship with Jesus he will lead you by his spirit to do good works that are between the believer and his God so that believers treasure is in heaven! This is just my take. Respectfully.